So the simplest definition of life is a definition of non live... In other words, if a see a rock and examine it I will know the essence of life. It seems insufficient somehow..
Snakelord you disagree that it is not simple? or do you disagree that it doesn't define heat? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Valid? Valid to who? (its certainly valid to a living person - lol)
I asked for a definition, not some local explanation.. This is a definition of light: "Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light
No, you said there is no difference between dead and inanimate matter. What you thus said is that life is the opposite of non life. Which is rather obvious and completely useless as a definition.
(that's the simplest defintion? Probably wouldn't work on a bunch of 6 year olds) Of course the problem at hand here is that light can be indicated as a separate issue from our consciousness - in other words our ability to see (in the sense of being conscious) is not dependent on light, so it can be reduced in a variety of mechanistic ways. Now how do you propose to see what you are seeing with? :scratchin: surely not by any reductionist methods that one could indicate light by (yes it is a complex topic, thus the simplest definition of consciousness is to define it by death, since the absence of consciousness clearly indicates the significance of its presence)
sure they both behave in the same way however contrasting the living and dead examples of a particular specimen clearly indicates the nature of life Once again, the survey starts to become dynamic when you encounter a living specimen. Otherwise it is just like turning off the light switch in a room that is already dark.
Did I ever ask for the simplest definition ? 6 year olds ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What are you on about ? Having fun ? :bugeye:
if you changed the dualistic options to something a bit more particular, like "nourishment" and "starvation", it would certainly work as a simple definition (meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand)
the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen. Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already. All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.
when working with the simplest definition, its best to work with them as your target audience o-k back to the simple definition then ....
Like being unconscious ? Your definition is horribly incomplete. Your definition: Life is the opposite of non life. Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Edit: I need a break from this stuff..
Things are not recognised by their opposites, they are recognised by change to a base rate. So for instance you have a man that lives in a freezer which is constantly -30. To make this man recognise heat you claim the best method is to turn the freezer down to -60. This does not aid the man in recognising heat but in recognising the cold. It will also confuse him mightily if you explain that heat is used to cook food and he then for some strange reason has trouble making dinner by putting the hamburger in the freezer. The easiest and appropriate way to explain heat is to turn the heating on, (or up if it's already on). Dictionary valid. Only if using the fallacious argument that anything that is conscious is alive therefore everything that is alive must be conscious.
so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant actually I have experience of something like this I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly? well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else, much like illustrating the nature of heat used for smelting iron would require something more than an electric stove that's simply another alternative it doesn't invalidate the existing one it certainly is a valid explanation unfortunately it doesn't invalidate the already existing explanation so I guess that means you are full of classic bullshit why is that fallacious? can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun? (IOW can you indicate an energy source that doesn't have energy or an energy that doesn't have a source) (Please don't mention exploded stars Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Emnos being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death of course there are other details bit it is sufficient for it to be clearly indicated. In light of our discussions, I would have thought it would be quite clear how life is indicated interesting how it opens up with what you have been trying to beat me over the head with for the past hundred posts Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! yes, there definitely is more to life Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!